Stuff

YouGov’s daily polling figures today are CON 42%, LAB 39%, LDEM 9%. After a week or two of the two parties being neck and neck YouGov has shown the Tories ahead for three days in a row now. True, we’re within the margin of error of the two parties being equal, but it’s been three weeks now since YouGov briefly showed Labour moving ahead, so the underlying position would appear to be a very small Tory lead.

Other polling companies are still displaying a Labour lead in their most recent polls – though for Ipsos MORI and ICM those polls were around the time YouGov were showing a Labour lead, so they too may show the Conservatives recovering once their December polls appear (for Populus it’s even longer since their last poll, they didn’t seem to do a Times poll in November for some reason).

105 Responses to “YouGov/Sun – 42/39/9”

“Neil A is probably best placed to comment on this, but I would think that those that volunteer for the armed services and the police force would, in the main, be temperamentally pro-establishment and conservative, with a small “c”, by nature and not likely to hold non-conformist or radical views about society; hence an in built proclivity to take a right wing view of life. However, I don’t think that necessarily makes them natural Tories and the impression I got from my conversations with the people from the services that I met and talked to over a 13 year period was that they were remarkably non party political. I know far less about serving policemen or policewomen, but my limited experience of those that I’ve met and got to know suggests again, an aversion and scepticism towards professional politicians of all parties.”

Funny that you mention this. My dad used to be a reserve police officer. Now most cops that I have known are fairly right wing. Most of that seems to stem from pro gun positions (there are some cops who are utter gun nuts) and just a general belief in law and order. My dad on the other hand is a complete liberal and his time on the force did not really diminish that (though he seems a bit more radical now that he’s no longer on the force). His middle name is Ronald but he dropped the use of it in November 1966 as he was so disgusted by Ronald Reagan and upset over him being elected governor.

“While you consider my last, I do not feel it is of immense significance in the case that we get PR, but if we do not, then social liberals will again be imprisoned in the illiberal Labour party, unless the latter changes its culture. If we had PR they could form their own faction and good luck to them.”

Could you elaborate a bit further on this. Is Labour still pursuing its policies against “anti-social” behavior. What does it consider to be “anti-social”?

The last Lab government was very reactionary in the literal sense. Faced with sink estate (trailer trash) anarchy, terrorist outrages, it reacted in a way which none of us old enough to remember the party prior to the New Labour sales mantra, which became a government culture, could imagine.

This development found approval in the Archie Bunker wing and the yuppie wing in New Labour.

This stance has yet to be reviewed, as I understand it.

This left the liberal socialist element very unhappy and caused a shift to support LD against even Labour in some constituencies (particularly ‘ethnic’ ones ) as well as Con over the last decade.

The coalition with Con has destroyed any faith that these people put in LD and even though we now have the most liberal Justice Minister ever (!) and a totally innocuous Home Sec, these voters are recording Labour though I think it’s a version of the same misplaced hope that they put in the Kennedy LD party (as opposed to what they see now).

I expect, in opposition, for the Labour party leader to change the image of Labour from the Po Faced party to ????.

“I can understand people having an opinion of reserves as being “weekend warriors” but I don’t quite understand why there would be ill-feeling between regulars and reserves.”

Partly because the TA in the UK (in the second half of the 19th century) was created to overcome the caste of the army. This is the real origin of it. It’s still difficult to admit for most of the army that both world wars were win – not by the professiona army. They systematically underperformed the volunteer one.

Partly because it’s difficult to admit that apart from the elite units, professional soldiers are doing a highly skilled, yet on-the-job training based job.

“Partly because the TA in the UK (in the second half of the 19th century) was created to overcome the caste of the army. This is the real origin of it. It’s still difficult to admit for most of the army that both world wars were win – not by the professiona army. They systematically underperformed the volunteer one.

Partly because it’s difficult to admit that apart from the elite units, professional soldiers are doing a highly skilled, yet on-the-job training based job.”

How interesting. Thinking back to my dad’s experience as a reserve police officer, his fellow cops loved him. There was never a nose snubbing. He had a life outside of law enforcement (unlike the regular officers) but he was willing to sacrifice some of it to go and help them and there was this camaraderie. He was one of them. I don’t know how reserves in the military in the U.S. are treated but I would imagine there’s a similar feeling of camaraderie from career military guys who appreciate people willing to sacrifice just a little bit to be one of them.

But, we never had the historical divisions that you point out existed in the UK military.